Nilesh Mohanrao Ghatge And Other vs Sunil Sambhaji Marathe And Other
2017 Latest Caselaw 3018 Bom

   (Judgment)                            (1)                    W.P. No. 05917 of 2015




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
          AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

                        Writ Petition No. 05917 of 2015

                                                     District : Jalgaon


1. Nilesh s/o. Mohanrao Ghatge,
   Age : 30 years,
   Occupation : Agriculture.

2. Jaywant s/o. Mohanrao Ghatge,
   Age : 39 years,
   Occupation : Agriculture.

   Both R/o. A/p. Vitner,
   Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon.

3. Narayan s/o. Keshav Ghatge,
   deceased through L.R.,

   3-A) Mohan Narayan Ghatge,
        Age : 66 years,
        Occupation : Agriculture,
        R/o. A/p. Vitner,
        Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon.                        .. Petitioners.

                versus

1. Sunil s/o. Sambhaji Marathe,
   Age : 35 years,
   Occupation : Agriculture.                           .. Respondent.

2. Sau. Lilabai Vijaysing Pardeshi,
   Age : 45 years,
   Occupation : Agriculture.                           .. Respondent
                                                          nos.02 & 03 deleted.
3. Vijaysing s/o. Chatarsing Pardeshi,
   Age : 50 years,
   Occupation : Agriculture.

   All R/o. A/p. Vitner,
   Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon.

                                      ...........

      Mr. L.V. Sangeet, Advocate, for petitioners.

      Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.01.




  ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 00:38:16 :::
   (Judgment)                              (2)                      W.P. No. 05917 of 2015




      Respondent nos.02 and 03 deleted as per Court's order
      dated 16.06.2015.

                                       ...........

                                    CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 09TH JUNE 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned advocates for the appearing parties finally with consent.

02. Admitted emerging position is that evidence is not yet commenced.

03. In the circumstances, in view of a decision of this Court dated 19th January 2015 in Writ Petition No. 0234 of 2015, which in turn refers to earlier decision of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court, wherein this Court has considered as under :-

"9. Since the scheme of Section 75(b) r/w. Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is aimed at elucidating informatioin through local inspection in order to assist the Trial Court in resolving the real controversy at issue, this Court has laid down the law as referred above that such an application for appointment of the Court Commissioner can be filed after commencement of the recording of evidence. It is not disputed that the recording of evidence is yet to commence. " may have to be given regard to.

04. The impugned order, as such, turns out to be premature. In the circumstances, the same stands set aside with liberty to the plaintiff to make appropriate application at proper stage for the relief claimed. Writ Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in

(Judgment) (3) W.P. No. 05917 of 2015

aforesaid terms.

05. In the circumstances, interim order, which had been operating staying further proceedings of the suit stands recalled. Suit be proceeded with expeditiously.

( Sunil P. Deshmukh ) JUDGE

...........

puranik / WP5917.15